Abortion?

[Zero]

I don't think I'm prepared to argue any points here, but I do have some questions.

When does a human gain the right to live?

What is your qualifier for human worth?

What's the difference between killing your 2 year old son for personal greed, and killing your unborn son for personal greed?

What are your feelings on late-term abortion?

I'm not trying to argue anything, I just want to know these things of you.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think I'm prepared to argue any points here, but I do have some questions.

When does a human gain the right to live?

When he or she grows a brain. This happens roughly halfway through the pregnancy.

What is your qualifier for human worth?

"I think, therefore I am".

What's the difference between killing your 2 year old son for personal greed, and killing your unborn son for personal greed?

Depends on whether that unborn son has reached the halfway point yet. I oppose with late-term abortion, but in the early term, it's nothing more than a mindless lump of cells.

What are your feelings on late-term abortion?

It's wrong.

I'm not trying to argue anything, I just want to know these things of you.

OK.

[Zero]

If "I think, therefore I am," is your qualifier, what do you think of the more intelligent animals in the world, like certain primates, and (maybe) dolphins? What about animals of lesser intellect? Is there a specific intellectual value that a creature has to have for it to have a right to live, or does this only apply to humans?

[Mobiboros]

When does a human gain the right to live?

I have to agree with Darth Wong. I would place it after the brain is fully formed, but would extend it further to when not only the brain but the lungs have formed. Quality of life is important to me and the idea of a child having to live hooked up to breathing tubes for the rest of their life isn't something I'd want.

What is your qualifier for human worth?

Worth? This is a kinda vague question. All humans have worth. Are you asking what's my line for demarking what is 'human'? Again, would have to agree with Wong.

What's the difference between killing your 2 year old son for personal greed, and killing your unborn son for personal greed?

Depends when in the development it occurs. Prior to what I layed out in point 1 the child can't survive outside being attached to the mother and feeding from her body. Also, why does "Greed" need to factor into it at all? Killing a 2 year odl because you think the devil is in him, or because a country orders you too is just as wrong as doing it for 'greed'.

What are your feelings on late-term abortion?

Depends on how you are defining late term, but in general I'm against it.

[Darth Wong]

If "I think, therefore I am," is your qualifier, what do you think of the more intelligent animals in the world, like certain primates, and (maybe) dolphins?

I think that the closer an animal is to human intelligence, the more rights we should give it. I do support animal rights to a certain extent, although I'm not a vegetarian.

What about animals of lesser intellect? Is there a specific intellectual value that a creature has to have for it to have a right to live, or does this only apply to humans?

It's obviously a sliding scale. No one feels guilty about killing bacteria, after all. Somewhere, you have to draw the line. For the sake of human society, it's pretty obvious that we must draw the line somewhere below human intelligence, but how far below is a question with no objective solution.

[Zero]

Depends when in the development it occurs. Prior to what I layed out in point 1 the child can't survive outside being attached to the mother and feeding from her body. Also, why does "Greed" need to factor into it at all? Killing a 2 year odl because you think the devil is in him, or because a country orders you too is just as wrong as doing it for 'greed'.

Our motivations in what we do are important, even if the action will be right or wrong irreguardless of our intent. Killing a man is wrong, but if you killed him because you knew it would result in an over all net-gain in life in the world, it may still be good.

It's my position that it would be quite greedy to kill off your unborn child simply because it inconveniences you, and it appears that to you, the qualifier for living is both consciousness and autonomy. So to you, if the fetus is completely dependent on the mother for its survival, even in terms of getting oxygen into its bloodstream, and if it has no brain, then it isn't human, and you have no moral qualms with its elimination?

[Darth Wong]

Our motivations in what we do are important, even if the action will be right or wrong irreguardless of our intent.

I'd like to see examples to support this claim.

Killing a man is wrong, but if you killed him because you knew it would result in an over all net-gain in life in the world, it may still be good.

So killing people who make birth-control pills or who teach kids contraceptive techniques may be good, according to you?

It's my position that it would be quite greedy to kill off your unborn child simply because it inconveniences you,

"Inconvenience" is a pretty fucking mild word for pregnancy, labour, and childbirth. Have you ever done it? My wife's health never fully recovered from her second pregnancy; she will have certain CFS symptoms for the rest of her natural life as a result of it. It's not debilitating but that's quite a sentence to pronounce on someone, and it's pretty goddamned close-minded of you to dismiss it as a mere "inconvenience". In fact, if you attempted to force that much pain and suffering on someone in lieu of a prison sentence, it would be considered torture and deemed a violation of human-rights laws.

and it appears that to you, the qualifier for living is both consciousness and autonomy. So to you, if the fetus is completely dependent on the mother for its survival, even in terms of getting oxygen into its bloodstream, and if it has no brain, then it isn't human, and you have no moral qualms with its elimination?

Of course not. With no brain, it's nothing but a mindless bag of flesh. Let's look at the opposite situation: if it were possible to transplant a human brain from a ruined body into an android body (think "General Grievous"), would you consider the resulting creature to be a person? The brain IS the person.

[Zero]

Is using the qualifier of intellect any more or less rational then simply saying that human life is valuable? Of course, then you get into all the tricksy shit about trying to define just what the hell human life means, and get into all kinds of crap about scratching your ass can kill small bits of skin, and how ejaculation is evil since many little bits of human life are lost. If you attempt to measure it on the level of potential humanity, then you still have the problem with sperm ejaculation, and contraception.

I'm asking these questions because I had an odd experience a few months back that has me wondering when something's considered human. I met a girl, age 15, and we talked a bit. She was a friend of a friend, and she told me she was pregnant. A week later, I heard that she'd gotten an abortion. At age 15, it's obviously a bad idea to carry a child to term, and an even worse idea to try and raise it. I also learned that this was her third abortion, and that made me feel awkward... I hadn't thought of it before, but I did actually feel quite terrible that she had killed off three people, even if they don't actually qualify as people. I'm still trying to find out why I felt an emotional connection with such things.

It became more of an issue when my girlfriend's period was a week and a half late... that week and a half was scary as hell, but I still couldn't stand the thought of her having an abortion. I could stand it less then the idea of being a father at age 16.

Can there be any logical reason that abortion could be viewed as wrong, or harmfull?

[Darth Wong]

Is using the qualifier of intellect any more or less rational then simply saying that human life is valuable?

Human life IS intellect. That's why we declare people legally dead when their brains go dead, even if the rest of their bodies are still alive.

[Zero]

Is using the qualifier of intellect any more or less rational then simply saying that human life is valuable?

Human life IS intellect. That's why we declare people legally dead when their brains go dead, even if the rest of their bodies are still alive.

Is it any different if they haven't yet had a chance to have a brain to go dead?

This shit's all pretty confusing for me...

[Crown]

Is using the qualifier of intellect any more or less rational then simply saying that human life is valuable?

Human life IS intellect. That's why we declare people legally dead when their brains go dead, even if the rest of their bodies are still alive.

Just a question for anyone in the know, when people are 'brain dead' are they hooked up to respirators and such - I mean the brain is dead, but are non-conscience motor functions still running? Just curious.

[Darth Wong]

Is using the qualifier of intellect any more or less rational then simply saying that human life is valuable?

Human life IS intellect. That's why we declare people legally dead when their brains go dead, even if the rest of their bodies are still alive.

Is it any different if they haven't yet had a chance to have a brain to go dead?

This shit's all pretty confusing for me...

"They" don't exist yet. The human being is the intellect, not the bag of flesh containing it. And the intellect is the brain. We've gone over this in this very forum before. If you take the argument that we should treat X as Y because X will eventually become Y with work, then contraception is just as immoral as abortion (and in fact, that's the Catholic Church's official position). However, most reasonable people consider this to be an absurd position to take, and we certainly don't adopt it in other spheres of life.

[Cairber]

In the united states, abortion is a difficult thing to be against. On one hand, you want to say that abortion is wrong after a certain point, especially late term abortions, but then you are staring at a system that gives low income/ young pregnant mothers (who tend to have no support from their families) little to no help in the matter. I want to say "abortion is wrong," but our system tells an already pregannt women that she is not able to receive health care if she applies while pregnant. It's also a system that gives semi-free prenatal care that leaves out all the important testing for the mother (even the simplest tests like the one for gestational diabetes). not to mention the horrible lack of safe sex education...

I feel abortion is wrong, especially late term abortion. But I also see these and other problems with the support system and the health care system here.

of course, this little rant is only the tip of the iceburg here...

[Zero]

I too feel abortion is wrong, although I'm still trying to find out why. I don't, however, think it should be illegal. I won't force my beliefs onto others. Safe-sex education is something that needs to be improved, as abstinance is never actually going to happen..

[Darth Wong]

Just a side-note: my sister-in-law nearly died during her first pregnancy, and is going to be mildly crippled (ie- loss of mobility) for the rest of her life because of the effects of blood clots that developed in her leg before she admitted herself to hospital. It is not trivial to expect people to undergo this.

[Mobiboros]

Our motivations in what we do are important, even if the action will be right or wrong irreguardless of our intent. Killing a man is wrong, but if you killed him because you knew it would result in an over all net-gain in life in the world, it may still be good.

Yes, motivations do matter. They are important. But that doesn't change the fact that even for a 'greater good' the act can be 'wrong'. The idea that sometimes you need to do 'wrong' for the 'greater good' doesn't change the act from 'wrong' to 'right', it just makes it a 'necessary evil'.

It's my position that it would be quite greedy to kill off your unborn child simply because it inconveniences you, and it appears that to you, the qualifier for living is both consciousness and autonomy. So to you, if the fetus is completely dependent on the mother for its survival, even in terms of getting oxygen into its bloodstream, and if it has no brain, then it isn't human, and you have no moral qualms with its elimination?

That's a large leap to make from "I accept that poeple can do X in Y situation" to "I am perfectly fine with it and would merrily do it.". Do I think people should be more educated about birth control so tht they don't have to have abortions? Yes. Do I pass judgement on people who make the decision (and having friends who've made the decision I can tell you it NOT an easy one for most people)? No. Do I have problems with people using it in lieu of borth control? Yes.

I accept that people will have various reasons for having abortions. But "Inconvinience" is a very poor way of putting it. The amount of strain a woman undergoes, not to mention the life change plus having to then raise a child. I accept that many people just aren't ready to have kids. And quite honestly I'd rather people who don't want them not have them then have a child they neglect or don't care for or resent (Not saying this always happens, but I'd rather people be socially responsible enough to know that they don't want/shouldn't have children).

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I agree with Wong, in that a person is his personality and his sense of awareness. If you aren't rationally autonomous, what are you? What's to separate you from a rat?

Humans should be judged by a basic level of intelligence potential. It's an important separation point between humans and other animals. This is the point in which I agree with Peter Singer. He essentially says that since human intelligence is a valuable part of making humans human, you should not treat other animals who have the same level of consciousness and intelligence any differently.

To this end, any human with "sub-human" intellect or functioning to the point in which it equals another type of animal should get the same treatment, otherwise, you would be giving preferential treatment to the human simply because of the species. As Wong said, Man is but the measure of his intellect/mind, so there's nothing right about treating people who don't have any of that any differently from animals that don't.

This isn't to say that people who are mentally impared should be treated poorly. It means that if you have a dog that has the same mental capacity as said human, you should treat them equally well.

[Lord of the Abyss]

To this end, any human with "sub-human" intellect or functioning to the point in which it equals another type of animal should get the same treatment, otherwise, you would be giving preferential treatment to the human simply because of the species. As Wong said, Man is but the measure of his intellect/mind, so there's nothing right about treating people who don't have any of that any differently from animals that don't.

This isn't to say that people who are mentally impared should be treated poorly. It means that if you have a dog that has the same mental capacity as said human, you should treat them equally well.

We should give moderately impaired people equal concern simply to be careful. We know humans are capable of human level consciousness and thought, so we can't always be sure if an impaired person is still a person inside or not. We have no evidence that a rat or frog can have anything near a human mind, so they deserve less consideration.

Giving someone with moderate impairment equal treatment is simply giving them the benefit of the doubt; giving someone with a nonfunctioning or not-yet-grown brain the same consideration is foolish.

By moderate, I mean we can't point at this person and say, "The areas of the brain that make him human are gone/never existed !".

Given this, my position on abortion is before the third trimester ( when the fetal brain shows human brainwave patterns ), no restrictions.
Afterwards, it should be allowed only for the health / life of the mother. My position is subject to change depending on future brain research.

[Duckie]

I too feel abortion is wrong, although I'm still trying to find out why.

You probably have the reflexive "But it will become human" thoughts. The following analogy could be a good explanation: [I, of course, analogize because the mental images help understand without the emotional baggage of a potential human being to weigh down logic].

L: A human fetus will later be a human being.
C: An explosive is not an explosion. [or similar analogy]
L: But it is still capable of becoming one under certain circumstances.
C: True, but if halted before it does so it produces none of the same effects.
L: But unaltered [assuming fertalization to be the countdown starting], the bomb will explode.
C: But by shutting it off, the bomb is not unaltered, hence unaltered conditions never existed. By me shutting the bomb off, the chance for it to explode never existed and no matter what it never would.

[Darth Wong]

I agree with Wong, in that a person is his personality and his sense of awareness. If you aren't rationally autonomous, what are you? What's to separate you from a rat?

Humans should be judged by a basic level of intelligence potential. It's an important separation point between humans and other animals. This is the point in which I agree with Peter Singer. He essentially says that since human intelligence is a valuable part of making humans human, you should not treat other animals who have the same level of consciousness and intelligence any differently.

To punctuate this point, let us perform a thought experiment: suppose you could genetically engineer a cow which is intelligent. Human-level intelligent, and able to communicate with us on a human level. Would you still feel OK about killing and eating it? I think not.

[Mr. T]

I don't think I'm prepared to argue any points here, but I do have some questions.

When does a human gain the right to live?

Up until a while ago I was of the knee-jerk left wing response of you can abort "right up to the moment of birth you can abort." But as I've learned more about the issue I'd agree that it's when the baby's brain has developed that's when it gains the right.

What is your qualifier for human worth?

There's very few humans I know that have any worth

What's the difference between killing your 2 year old son for personal greed, and killing your unborn son for personal greed?

You're unborn son is probably just a collection of cells depending on when you do it.

What are your feelings on late-term abortion?

Not right, basically killing a life.

I'm not trying to argue anything, I just want to know these things of you.

[Mr. T]

^^ Aww damit, fucked up my post, oh well still readable I hope.

[Lord of the Abyss]

You probably have the reflexive "But it will become human" thoughts. The following analogy could be a good explanation: [I, of course, analogize because the mental images help understand without the emotional baggage of a potential human being to weigh down logic].

L: A human fetus will later be a human being.
C: An explosive is not an explosion. [or similar analogy]
L: But it is still capable of becoming one under certain circumstances.
C: True, but if halted before it does so it produces none of the same effects.
L: But unaltered [assuming fertalization to be the countdown starting], the bomb will explode.
C: But by shutting it off, the bomb is not unaltered, hence unaltered conditions never existed. By me shutting the bomb off, the chance for it to explode never existed and no matter what it never would.

Here's my arguement against the "potentially human" claim. As cloning technology advances, every cell in your body will qualify as "potentially human", so if that's morally equal to a full human's, you commit mass murder if you scratch yourself. Any claim that a few cells are the equal of a person is absurd, and denigrates the value of human life.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Little off topic but someone brought up animals here and so...i heard somewhere a Chimp has the intelligence of a 5-year-old. That struck me as like, wow thats pretty smart considering. Could thus a person status be applied somewhat to a Chimp, as it is entirely possible that, like a five year old, they can think and feel like a human child? I understand that's off topic but it's a question that is sort of tied to the question of what is human. By that i mean, could a child-like human intellect make one 'human by defult' i.e not born a human but close enough to apply rights and such. De facto humanity, in other words.

[DrkHelmet]

Little off topic but someone brought up animals here and so...i heard somewhere a Chimp has the intelligence of a 5-year-old. That struck me as like, wow thats pretty smart considering. Could thus a person status be applied somewhat to a Chimp, as it is entirely possible that, like a five year old, they can think and feel like a human child? I understand that's off topic but it's a question that is sort of tied to the question of what is human. By that i mean, could a child-like human intellect make one 'human by defult' i.e not born a human but close enough to apply rights and such. De facto humanity, in other words.

If, at some point in the near future, our computers got really smart, and had the intelligence of a 5-year old, would it be illegal to shut them down?